UBC residents appeal to premier after losing hospice fight - Macleans.ca
 

UBC residents appeal to premier after losing hospice fight

“Women and children” face psychological trauma: opponents


 

Condo residents opposed to a recently-approved hospice that will be built next door to them at University of British Columbia have written a letter to Premier Christy Clark, asking her have the decision reversed. Residents — many of them are of Chinese heritage — say that they believe the 15-bed facility will bring “ghosts” to the area. Others have accused them of worrying only about the possibility of declining property values.

In the new letter, which was sent to the Vancouver Sun, residents report that nearly three-quarters building’s owners are opposed to the hospice. They also claim that the controversy is harming their health.

“Do you know some residents, as a result of the proposed hospice, have been diagnosed to have worsening medical and new psychological conditions that need professional help?” they wrote in their the letter to Clark. “Women and children too have been affected.”


 
Filed under:

UBC residents appeal to premier after losing hospice fight

  1. I do not like the color of the houses across the street – I think they are ugly and this causes me emotional distress. I would like the color changed.

    And regarding the curtains – just don’t get me started.

  2. I think that living next to a bunch of superstitious/greedy people is bad for the health of palliative care patients, so they should all be re-located away from the hospice site.

    Unlike the superstitious residents of the condo tower, I actually have data to back up my claims. Did you know that most palliative care patients living near high concentrations of greedy people die within a few years? It’s true!

    /sarcasm

  3. It is also an ancient Chinese belief that mirrors can be used to ward off evil spirits. Homes near cemeteries in Beijing often have a small mirror facing outwards for protection. Simple.

  4. Not that a hospice is a cemetary… in any case, it is wholly inappropriate for the premier to intervene much less asked to.

  5. Dear Premier Clark and MLA for Vancouver Point Grey,

    Re UBC Proposed Hospice Site

    We write to let our MLA know we are very disappointed with your comment of convenience in support of the hospice site without knowing specifics and having any first hand information of the project. We would like to invite you to visit us at your earliest convenience. A first hand experience is worth a thousand words. Would you come?

    Like you, we are not opposed to a hospice on UBC campus but we are reasonable in saying that the proposed site is problematic.

    Would you build the palliative unit of a hospital with only a 3.53 meters set back to the property line? The proposed hospice building’s width runs approximately the same width as the adjacent Promontory condominium high rise. The proposed hospice will have an “in your face” effect to about fifty percent of the promontory condo units, especially the lower units. UBC planning’s seat of the pants answer is to add a tree screen in the 3.5 meters. Is this good for the users of the hospice, and its original “best site” intention?

    Do you know the proposed hospice site in question is directly across from the Thunderbird Stadium (the road between from curb to curb is single lane each way), and this is the best site for sound and light impacts within the UBC campus?

    UBC Planning stubbornly insists that this is the best site and only best site within its 1,000 acres campus! Do you believe it and agree?

    Do you know some residents, as a result of the proposed hospice, have been diagnosed to have worsening medical and new psychological conditions that need professional help? Women and children too have been affected.

    We know you believe in democracy, do you know that seventy-one of the ninety-four units of the Promontory units oppose this site? And do you know a thousand campus residents also oppose this site? Do they count?

    Would UBC planning have picked this site if it knew what would happen? We would like to know what you think. UBC planning arrogantly insist its “yes”! That means every other site would be more problematic in UBC’s 1,000 acres campus, do you believe it?

    Do you know UBC picked fifteen possible sites before, and within that the site in question didn’t even make it to UBC’s “best nine sites” list? Pacific Spirit Park Society, Wreck Beach Society and students have all rejected other proposed sites before and UBC listened. So why not listen to residents in a UBC growing campus of residents? Do they have rights?

    UBC decided on the site in question in June 2010 but didn’t bother to have its first open house till Jan 2011. After the hospice issue attracted widespread controversy with the residents in the media in January, UBC didn’t even bother to meet with the affected residents until April 2011. This is only possible because UBC Planning doesn’t operate under real democratic principles. UBC’s A.V.P. of Planning should resign.

    At one time you aspired to become the mayor of Vancouver, do you think the same residents’ concerns would be brushed aside and ignored under the Vancouver governance model with an elected mayor and council?

    You are now the B.C. Premier, do you still agree with Vancouver city’s democratic principles?

    Under these circumstances, we initiated a reasonable proposal to the UBC Board of Governors that this grievance provoked by UBC Planning be settled by sending the UBC Planning Report for basing the decision to be independently reviewed by a third party expert that the residents and UBC would both agree. We wish to maintain community harmony through a democratic and fair process. Do you know this was rejected without any contact with the residents and the site was approved within 48 hours?

    Now that you care to comment, what can you do and what should you do to help your constituents as their Premier and their MLA?

    Promontory residents need your help.

    Would you help your constituents in need?

    Reference link:

    The Report of the ESL committee of the UNA:

    We look forward to your reply.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Concerned Promontory Residents

  6. I have to say that the above is one of the most sickeningly dishonest and hysterical displays of NIMBYism that I’ve ever seen. “Worsening medical” and “new psychological conditions”? “Women and children”? What shamelessly manipulative garbage.

    • The following background will be useful for you to understand the situation.

      The first link is the February issue of the Campus Resident

      The second link below is James Taylor’s report.

  7. Without having talked to the mothers and children, nobody should make any judgement. People could go to the UNA website to view the ESL report, which reveals the truth. It is sickeningly dishonest for anybody to pretend to know the facts.